Barg on the NBA's All-Chuckers Team LOL wow!

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...chuckers-squad
Bargnani may have surpassed Boozer in the unpopularity contest. He's shooting 37 percent, his free throws have dropped off, and he has somehow regressed on the boards and as a help defender. The cries to dump Bargnani get louder with each late-game Toronto collapse, the latest of which featured Jrue Holiday blowing by Bargnani on a switch and hitting Jason Richardson for a clutch 3.

But the Raptors scored at a bottom-three rate without Bargnani last season, and a big man with legit 3-point range that can be deployed at high volumes is enormously valuable simply for floor spacing.

Which brings us back to context and defense. Bargnani's a liability on the latter front, outside of some decent one-on-one post defense, and the context is changing in Toronto. Kyle Lowry is a borderline All-Star who can penetrate the defense, and DeMar DeRozan, flashing an improved post game, can at least tread water as a no. 1 option in Lowry's injury-related absence. Jonas Valanciunas will get better down low. Bargnani's contract is amnesty-eligible, and he has two years left after this one at a relatively affordable price.

So there you have it. His name is being spoken around the league. How you like that?

Everytime I see 37% for a second I thnk it's really good...then I realize it's not his 3 point percentage and become sad. At this point a change has to be made, whether it's amnestying, trading, or just sending him to the bench. Waiting for him to play better is silly.

"When Life gives you lemons, you clone those Lemons to make super lemons!"
-Scudworth

The prelude of the article before Zach Lowe lists the players is interesting as well; it's not just a list of chuckers.

It's almost universally accepted among NBA stat geeks that players become less efficient as they use up a larger share of their team's possessions hunting for shots. The very best players can remain efficient while sucking up 25 or 30 percent of possessions, but even they begin to fall off beyond that. Ask role players to take on that kind of burden, and their shooting percentages and other efficiency stats will come crashing down.

The debate mostly centers around the search for the proper balance on each team, and whether there is value in simply having guys who can create shot attempts  even if a few of those attempts each night are blatantly bad. Math in a vacuum suggests teams would be better off shifting possessions from heavy-usage players to low-usage players who have been monstrously efficient in their rare chances; this is the "get the ball to Tyson Chandler more often!" argument. Studies of actual basketball suggest that asking Chandler to do more would result in more bad stuff from him  turnovers, offensive fouls, misses, and air-balled mid-rangers like the one he launched last week in San Antonio. Having a ball hog like Carmelo Anthony  playing less like a ball hog this season  might actually have value, as he allows teammates to find their happy medium on offense.

The dream is to find the right balance, and there is no easy statistical formula for that. Roster context matters, and we haven't even talked defense. For every example of a team's offense sinking without a ball-dominant star (Hi, Pacers!), we could probably find another offense thriving without one (Sorry, Amar'e.)

The evidence is all over the place. With Thanksgiving upon us, let's take a moment, though, to give thanks to some occasionally unpopular shot-chuckers who might have more value than their detractors think.

The first bold I'd like to call the "Amir-Is-Great-argument" which could be found here some time ago. Btw; not intending this to be a defense of Bargnani (this year) on my part.

The prelude of the article before Zach Lowe lists the players is interesting as well; it's not just a list of chuckers.

The first bold I'd like to call the "Amir-Is-Great-argument" which could be found here some time ago. Btw; not intending this to be a defense of Bargnani (this year) on my part.

Math in a vacuum suggests teams would be better off shifting possessions from heavy-usage players to low-usage players who have been monstrously efficient in their rare chances; this is the "get the ball to Tyson Chandler more often!" argument. Studies of actual basketball suggest that asking Chandler to do more would result in more bad stuff from him  turnovers, offensive fouls, misses, and air-balled mid-rangers like the one he launched last week in San Antonio. Having a ball hog like Carmelo Anthony  playing less like a ball hog this season  might actually have value, as he allows teammates to find their happy medium on offense.

Just like the usage debate is "math in a vacuum" so is the corresponding response "theory in a vacuum".

Just how important and relevant and at what point there are diminishing returns towards usage has (atleast to my knowledge) never really been broken down with any degree of accuracy.

Yes there seems to be a general trend that usage means less efficiency - and this makes sense if only because more forced shots (shot clock, buzzer etc). But teams also have a tendency to give the ball to players who are thought to be better scorers or shooters (or perhaps players just take it upon themselves to do it), and in some ways force that usage vs efficiency result. There is also a tendency for teams to focus on scoring rather than efficiency, and as such could also be reinforcing this tendency.

If we look at Amir's efficiency vs usage over the years we see that there is almost no correlation between usage and efficiency. Now his usage is never particularily high (except in the ridiculously small sample size years - and even then his most efficient and least efficient years exist within his 2 most high usage years - but the samples are too small to put any level of vslur into).

With Bargnani we have relatively consistent usage and efficiency for his first 4 years (with a drop in efficiency in his 2nd year). We then see a jump in usage and a corresponding decrease in efficiency. Except this year where we see a small drop in usage and a rater large drop in efficiency. But this year can easily be excused due to a small sample, and his 2nd year could be viewed as an outlier. In which case we see that the theory does hold true - increased usage leads to decreased efficiency.

Lebron James we see a trend where efficiency increased with more usage (although this could easily be explained by experience and age). Its not perfect though, and his usage is always rather high as is his efficiency

So here's the problem - the theory does seems sound. Usage can lead to decreased efficiency. There is some evidence behind it, there is some reasonable/rational thinking behind it. But it doesn't always hold. Teams don't seem to bother with trying to find where players diminishing returns are, and even if they did how difficult is setting a 'shot limit' for players? Or a 'shot floor'?

Then their additional questions. If Amir was allowed to take as many shots as Bargnani, he may be less efficient than he has so far, but would he be even less efficient than Bargnani or would he still be more efficient? We don't get to see that because its never existed to compare

Plus how do coaches and GMs view it? I'm willing to bet Casey is more comfortable with Bargnani taking 22fters than Amir and if Amir took to many he'd see the bench. Bargnani though? There's no evidence that taking too many shots from an inefficient range is ever a problem.

I'm confident saying that there are unique diminishing returns for every player, and if someone can find an algorithm to find that, they are in for a big time pay day. But as it stands teams tend to believe certain players are better 'shot creators or makers' than others and therefore use them that way. The most successful teams however find players who can both maintain a high usage while being highly efficient. There's very little point in keeping someone who can't maintain that unless they have some individual function or play a specific role on a team.

wow matt, you have really decided you hate bargs now. i applaud your convictions and hope to never cross you. i seems yours would be enmity for life. hahaha

You would have to insult me, let me down time and time again, and psychologically and emotionally abuse me for 7 consecutive years and while I stand by you and defend you through thick and thin (minus a short spell at the end of year 5). After that is done, you have to give me a huge kick in the tender area 10 times while showing no remorse and making no effort to apologize and change. But after all of that, it is still my own fault for believing you could change your ways in year 7 in the first place.

You would have to insult me, let me down time and time again, and psychologically and emotionally abuse me for 7 consecutive years and while I stand by you and defend you through thick and thin (minus a short spell at the end of year 5). After that is done, you have to give me a huge kick in the tender area 10 times while showing no remorse and making no effort to apologize and change. But after all of that, it is still my own fault for believing you could change your ways in year 7 in the first place.

There was an interesting point made by Jack Armstrong in yesterdays game about Bargnani's building a reputation for being a target defensively. In several games this season we've seen Andrea constantly being attacked by opposing players with the same result. He is a HUGE defensive liability and has cost us the game on more than one occasion #tradebargnani

There was an interesting point made by Jack Armstrong in yesterdays game about Bargnani's building a reputation for being a target defensively. In several games this season we've seen Andrea constantly being attacked by opposing players with the same result. He is a HUGE defensive liability and has cost us the game on more than one occasion #tradebargnani

There was an interesting point made by Jack Armstrong in yesterdays game about Bargnani's building a reputation for being a target defensively. In several games this season we've seen Andrea constantly being attacked by opposing players with the same result. He is a HUGE defensive liability and has cost us the game on more than one occasion #tradebargnani

+1

here's the thing...other teams LOVE when he's on the court because, even though he's talented offensively, he doesn't make up for how poor he is defensively. I am actually embarrassed watching him sometimes and i really think it's just time to move on.

At the very least we should move him to the bench. To the point which Grantland is making about effeciency, I think he would be more efficient as a 6th man who can come off the bench. If he's hot let him stay on, otherwise he shouldn't be used as anything more than a nick young type player who can come off the bench and score

I'm finally onboard with this. If you can't trade him, let him play against some of the NBA's lesser talents. He might play with more energy if he is only getting 25 minutes a night. If Fields comes back with any kind of a shot, let JV and Ed start.